The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Compulsory DNA testing at birth

Compulsory DNA testing at birth

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I can think of a thousand reasons for making it that way.

1. Partner doubt. But how do you ask without destroying your relationship.

2. Financial. Imagine paying maintenance on a child for 15 years and both you and the child find out you're not related?.

3. Emotional. See above.

I can see the civil liberties faction getting upset about it in regards to right to privacy but is an INDIVIDUAL entitled to that when it comes to two people creating a child?.
Posted by StG, Monday, 17 November 2008 10:46:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have selected only one dimension of the issue, StG.

Once you have had a DNA test, you would be obliged to share its content with your insurance company.

They would then be able to assess your genetic disposition to a wide - and widening - range of hereditary conditions.

You premium would then reflect the actuarial calculation of the likelihood of your succumbing to one or more of this range of conditions, along with all the other risks..

Premiums would be adjusted for the revised risk profile.

It is actually a two-way street. If you had the same information - i.e. the actuarial stuff that was derived from your DNA data, you would be better off to self-insure (there would be no management expenses to deduct from your savings), which would deprive the insurance companies of your business.

Whichever way you cut it, it would require some massive changes to our insurance industry.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 17 November 2008 11:55:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can understand why some men would have doubts. However, I don't see how it could be made compulsory - sounds like another weapon to be used by a controlling partner - making women jump through hoops when they are very vulnerable, like after childbirth.

I think there should be the establishment of reasonable doubt before a DNA test is enforced.

On the plus side it would reveal the reality that the majority of male partners are indeed the genetic fathers and put a stop to this fear mongering and speculation.

And such action still won't help all the children fathered by promiscuous males into wombat behaviour.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 17 November 2008 11:59:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see not just the paternity/relation testing that StG is talking about, but the whole genome sequencing that Pericles alludes to as being standard procedure.

Most people have no idea of what's coming. I have been reading up on some of the sequencing methods that will be available in a few years.
http://www.genome.gov/27527584

The health insurance industry will definitely need a radical overhaul. But the benefits will be enormous. Imagine knowing beforehand what drugs will work properly, which foods or medications that a child has potential allergies to. Or what cancer genes that you have and knowing much more about what lifestyle choices or foods can make you live longer or know how to improve your immune system on a personal level, rather than a statistical probability derived from the whole population.

It's going to be cheap, quick and the therapies and benefits will be advancing as fast as the insurance companies. The funding paradigm will have to change. In fact I suspect that health insurance companies may not exist in the distant future as all medicine may have to be socialised.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 17 November 2008 12:20:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
StG compulsory testing at birth might have some advantages but it also reeks of yet more government inteference.

As a lesser of evils approach I'd suggest that the point for such testing should be before the first action where one party may be directly disadvantaged (or advantaged) by an outside decision based on an assumption of paternity. (I say paternity because I doubt that maternity is often in doubt). The points that come to mind are prior to the issuing of the first CSA assessment, division of property following a relationship breakdown (if child residency will impact on the outcome).

Not an ideal solution. There may be no good solutions. My understanding is that in about 1/4 of the cases where someone has serious enough doubts of paternity to seek a paternity test DNA testing shows their concerns to be valid. That is I assume a very small proportion of the population.

The whole thing is messy, on the one hand it's argued that an established parental type relationship with a child constitutes parental financial responsibility for that child but on the other hand a one night fling with no knowledge of a subsequent conception and birth also constitutes the same responsibility.

Those who supposedly have such a poor relationship with "their" child that almost no contact with the child is seen as important by either themselves or the other parent of the child are likewise deemed to have that responsibility.

In silliest of case's you might get someone who is not the biological parent of a child being required to provide financial support for the child and it's parent based on a relationship with the child which was not considered important enough to have the child continue to reside near enough to the payer to continue the relationship. I don't know how often that happens but it's easy to see how it could happen.

Compulsary DNA testing would prevent a number of gross injustices but it would open up other harms. Which is the lesser harm?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 17 November 2008 12:43:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interestingly enough Bugsy, Australia's Private Health Insurance industry will hardly be affected at all.

>>The health insurance industry will definitely need a radical overhaul.<<

This is because - by legislation - the insurers cannot discriminate.

The premiums are calculated on the basis of the entire population, so-called "community rating". Thus the health potential of an individual is totally irrelevant to the premium.

You can be 21 or 71, you pay the same for the same cover, since the actuarial basis is... everybody.

What will change, as you quite rightly point out, is that if this information becomes a) freely available and b) universal, we should expect the benefits to flow through in better targetted disease management, preventive actions and so on.

The devil will be in the interim - i.e. before we get to the universal awareness bit - when individuals will be reluctant to share this information with their Life Insurance company, while those companies will feel well within their rights to demand it.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 17 November 2008 1:10:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess I should've clarified as Paternity testing. Gattaca-esque DNA testing is something else altogether. You should have that right to privacy. I'll stand on the line to defend against that one.

Back to the topic.

Fractelle ~ I don't see how it could be used by controlling partners against their partner. I just don't. I guess it's the same argument that many have with the government gaining access to your personal information. If you have nothing to hide, then what's the issue?. I think both parents have equal right to know everything about their child. The mother shouldn't have ultimate control over both individuals claim on information regarding their child's paternity, etc. But, neither should the father.

Your father-wombat comment is retarded and unnecessary. They didn't force themselves on the women.

I guess it's a similar sort of thing to 'prenups' when raising it with your partner. The paternity test is about self preservation, and for the benefit of all people involved. I'd want to know if a child isn't mine before I invested my life in it. I'd find NOTHING more hurtful or betraying than finding out later it isn't mine.
Posted by StG, Monday, 17 November 2008 1:31:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually StG, the Gattaca-esque testing is not something else altogether. It will be routine, and at birth, as I can easily envisage benefits for SIDS and a whole range of life threatening diseases that affect babies. Paternity is just one of the effects from this kind of testing.

Arguing about paternity testing in the face of these technologies is like saying that orbital satellites are all very good and all and I recognise that they may have benefits to telecommunincations and navigation, but should we really be using them for predicting what the weather is tomorrow?
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 17 November 2008 2:01:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wouldn't be doing the Test AT birth.
Surely it would be done in the womb, and the earlier the better.
Surely the mother would want the real father at the birth.
Surely the father wouldn't want to go through the emotional and economic ups and downs for months after the birth to find out the child is not his.
As mentioned earlier the DNA testing could be used for medical intervention as well.
Posted by waggamick, Monday, 17 November 2008 3:10:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Compulsory DNA testing at birth?

It would help to ease the current
situation where the statistics tell us that
over 20% of men currently paying child-support,
are doing it for someone else's child, not their
own. DNA would help ascertain the correct parentage.
And being compulsory - would become acceptable in time,
as a matter of course.

It would also give a more accurate family history and
aid in hereditary illness research.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 17 November 2008 3:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
more complications being caused by secular values. It is amazing how many problems are caused by these values or lack of them and then millions of dollars needed to address them.
Posted by runner, Monday, 17 November 2008 3:32:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, "It would help to ease the current situation where the statistics tell us that over 20% of men currently paying child-support, are doing it for someone else's child, not their
own."

I've not followed this closely but the reports I've seen have put the figure at about 25% where a paternity test is conducted. Most men paying child support don't have one done and it seems reasonable to assume that most paternity tests are conducted because the nominated father is concerned that they may not be the father. I don't think it's reasonable to extrapolate beyond that.

I've seen a range of figures for estimates of the percentage of children where the nominated father is not the biological father (and does not know it). My recollection is that most put the figure between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 but I could be way off on that and I don't know the agenda's of those producing the figures.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 17 November 2008 4:09:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I do not like compulsion,it will happen probably has to.
But paternity? please this is not an attack on womens rights.
It is in fact the child's right to know his or her father.
I am truly stunned that some women,even those not affected by such tests want to stop them?
Why?
Yes many are going to find dad is not dad but no difference in male or female exists in sex both can, often do have many partners.
Children's rights count too.
While funny it is also true , in some bush towns the definition of confusion is fathers day.
Just what is more important mums rights or children wedding a sibling?
Posted by Belly, Monday, 17 November 2008 5:01:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Robert,

I wasn't sure of the statistics. That's why I said
over 20%.

Dear Belly,

Marrying a sibling - is an excellent point.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 17 November 2008 5:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that a seperated partner should have the right to request a dna test prior to paying any child support as it would be unfair for one to pay out for anothers child. As for making it law at birth I feel there are to many risks here so leave it be I say.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 17 November 2008 7:06:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thankyou Foxy. Someone got it.
Posted by StG, Tuesday, 18 November 2008 12:07:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
StG.

Hmmmm I see your point but Like RObert said it isn’t quite that simple nothing ever really is. Have you considered?
• Adopted Children? imagine the abuses, shocks etc.
• Surrogate Children? the mental trauma in some circumstances
• Donated what eggs/sperm et al?(imagine 10 off springs turning up on your door claiming 20 yrs later demanding a cut of your property or the press?
• Then there’s children of rape victims
• Children of heinous crims…. A child of say‘one of the bodies in the barrel’s murderers’?
• What I call “children of deceit. Not all mums are victims
• Children of Incest?
• Children of deceased dads?
• Children rejected in wills?
How would we deal with the rights of the above?
All of the above I have dealt with as a crisis councillor

Points like sibling marriages and hereditary diseases are issues but I agree that if the test results go any further I too would object strenuously.
BELLY is right it is about the rights of the child but sometimes the whole truth can do a lot of unnecessary harm to a lot of innocent people

REHCTUB has probably got the best solution test when they apply for child support or etc and immediately destroyed once paternity has been established.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 19 November 2008 6:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear examinator,

If compulsory DNA testing was the norm at birth -
the issues that you mention would be dealt with
at the very beginning to be resolved by the parents
instead of placing the burden on the child at a later
age with counseling and therapy.

If the facts are known at birth, no
matter how traumatic they may be for the parents,
it's easier to deal with the matter and move on,
than find out the truth later in life when complications
have set in.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 November 2008 7:59:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy I have mixed views on the known at birth issue.
Part of me thinks people should know but I really don't think it's the government's role to provide that service. There would be some obvious benefits for health management to know for sure but other tradeoff's in terms of harm.

Like a lot of things the government might do which seem to make sense we are probably all better off if they don't do so because every little step down that track takes away some of our choice and liberty.

I've noticed in my reading on DV that there is a peak in the rates of serious violence against women when they are pregnant, I suspect largely because of the increased tensions at that time. Adding compuslory paternity testing into the mix could well add to that.

There is not really an appropriate gender parity for this. Believing that a child is your offspring whan they are not is different to not knowing that your partner has a child to someone else. Having said that women don't know about partners having children to other women unless the other women tell or the CSA gets involved.

I think that the harm from compulsory testing at birth is greater than any gain and will remain so for some time.

The point where the government involves itself should be when it chooses to make decisions where paternity is relevant (property division, child support etc). Individuals should have the right to have the tests conducted if they choose and to do so without the other party knowing. Having to have the other party's consent seems like a no-win situation, likely to provoke tension regardless of who did what and as a consequence limiting peoples access to the tests.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 20 November 2008 10:47:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Robert,

I agree this is a complicated issue - and you've
raised some very valid points that I'll have to
re-think.

However, a national record of DNA would facillitate
in criminal matters, abductions, loss of memory,
hereditary research, and should only be given out
under the strictest control of the courts,
as requested, depending on the circumstances,
and not freely available on anyone's whim.

To date, blood types and finger-prints,
which help identify people,
have been used for that purpose,
not to great effect.

DNA medically would assist in transplants,
bone-marrow and other procedures. For example,
the most recent example, was the HMAS Sydney
sailor, whose remains were tested for DNA and
likely family connection
was not able to be traced.

In future, with a National DNA Record Bank, this
would be instantly found at the touch of a computer key.

But, you're right, I am beginning to see that
this is unlikely to be happening any time soon,
in this country, but with the advances in
science and technology, it could happen within
the next ten years, especially in countries like
the US - where crime fighting is a major conern.

The world of science has perfected the development
of DNA. This should not be abandoned but used
for the greater benefit of our society.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 November 2008 12:17:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear foxy
Here is a simple senario for your consideration.

Take a happy family of say a couple and two kids. Then a third comes along and, unbeknown to the husband it is the result of a one night fling on the wifes part. Now don't get me wrong, I would be livered if that happend to me!

Do you then disrupt the loving caring family unit, turn the other two children's lives upside down because a compulsory dna test showed that the wife had a 'blond moment'.

I say again that all seperated parents should have the right to determine if the child they are about to provide financial support for is actually theirs.

There is no easy answer but why disrupt a caring loving family unit.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 20 November 2008 6:02:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear rehctub,

Re-read my post.

The only way the father would find out is if the mother
confessed and told him ,or if the third child was
kidnapped and killed and through DNA the police
would trace who the parents were.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 November 2008 9:48:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear examinator,

If compulsory DNA testing was the norm at birth -
the issues that you mention would be dealt with
at the very beginning to be resolved by the parents
instead of placing the burden on the child at a later
age with counseling and therapy.

If the facts are known at birth, no
matter how traumatic they may be for the parents,
it's easier to deal with the matter and move on,
than find out the truth later in life when complications
have set in.
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 20 November 2008 7:59:56 AM

Dear Foxy
This was your post I was reffering to.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 9:17:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear me.

For some inexplicable reason, I expected more would prefer truth. The hard reality however, seems to render it incompatible with the best interests of a child. By extension, its mother. Very neat.
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 25 November 2008 11:09:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker, I don't want more compusory government intervention. They have a habbit of turning that into bad things.

As for the best interets of the mother - you can be pretty confident that there will be a man involved in the pregnancies as well and that in most cases if mums caught out he will be outed as well.

I do prefer truth to lies but if truth involves the government setting up a ministry of truth to determine what the truth is then no thanks.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 26 November 2008 7:07:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy